Clearly no way to know at this point but seems to be few bikes being shown and tyres and wheels at various trade shows recently.
Plus few test rides by journalists which is really isnrCOt that interesting as limited time and really needs time with normal riders.
Have noted that 32in is 10% larger than a 29er which is 10% larger than
26in bikes, I personally have a older 26in MTB Hardtail and a more modern 29er full suspension MTB, the tyre size is the least significant thing between the bikes, I am on the taller side so thatrCOs something to note, but my MTBing is slow tight twisty technical than more open stuff that if one believes everything thing said online should be playing to a 29ers weakness ie rCLwagon wheelsrCY which is what 20 years later the grumbling about 32in is
again using.
This said IrCOm not convinced it will just supplant 700c in the Gravel world bar the racer, the folks at unbound racing 200 miles on big open gravel
roads makes sense, with MTBing are number of different types from XC to DH, DH in particular have only in the last few years started using 29ers more even then number of Mullet bikes about ie 29(F) and 27.5 (R)
IrCOd of thought that XC racers again like the Gravel racers who occupy a similar place (very loosely) and is indeed some tyre cross compatibility,
and indeed riders and even to road. Which is different to the more gravity focused racing such as Enduro and DH or even just trail whose riders which tends to favour durability and ability to cave through turns and so on.
In short some of the arguments are simply to excuse the pun just circular
and will be a case of seeing what actually works and happens, IrCOd be surprised if it was adopted wholesale, but IrCOd be expecting it to be more popular than say Fatbikes, but a alternative maybe even mainstream option
in some specific use cases, such as XC MTBing and Gravel racers.
Roger Merriman
Clearly no way to know at this point but seems to be few bikes being shown and tyres and wheels at various trade shows recently.
Plus few test rides by journalists which is really isnrCOt that interesting as limited time and really needs time with normal riders.
Have noted that 32in is 10% larger than a 29er which is 10% larger than
26in bikes, I personally have a older 26in MTB Hardtail and a more modern 29er full suspension MTB, the tyre size is the least significant thing between the bikes, I am on the taller side so thatrCOs something to note, but my MTBing is slow tight twisty technical than more open stuff that if one believes everything thing said online should be playing to a 29ers weakness ie rCLwagon wheelsrCY which is what 20 years later the grumbling about 32in is
again using.
This said IrCOm not convinced it will just supplant 700c in the Gravel world bar the racer, the folks at unbound racing 200 miles on big open gravel
roads makes sense, with MTBing are number of different types from XC to DH, DH in particular have only in the last few years started using 29ers more even then number of Mullet bikes about ie 29(F) and 27.5 (R)
IrCOd of thought that XC racers again like the Gravel racers who occupy a similar place (very loosely) and is indeed some tyre cross compatibility,
and indeed riders and even to road. Which is different to the more gravity focused racing such as Enduro and DH or even just trail whose riders which tends to favour durability and ability to cave through turns and so on.
In short some of the arguments are simply to excuse the pun just circular
and will be a case of seeing what actually works and happens, IrCOd be surprised if it was adopted wholesale, but IrCOd be expecting it to be more popular than say Fatbikes, but a alternative maybe even mainstream option
in some specific use cases, such as XC MTBing and Gravel racers.
Roger Merriman
Clearly no way to know at this point but seems to be few bikes being shown and tyres and wheels at various trade shows recently.
Plus few test rides by journalists which is really isnrCOt that interesting as limited time and really needs time with normal riders.
Have noted that 32in is 10% larger than a 29er which is 10% larger than
26in bikes, I personally have a older 26in MTB Hardtail and a more modern 29er full suspension MTB, the tyre size is the least significant thing between the bikes, I am on the taller side so thatrCOs something to note, but my MTBing is slow tight twisty technical than more open stuff that if one believes everything thing said online should be playing to a 29ers weakness ie rCLwagon wheelsrCY which is what 20 years later the grumbling about 32in is
again using.
This said IrCOm not convinced it will just supplant 700c in the Gravel world bar the racer, the folks at unbound racing 200 miles on big open gravel
roads makes sense, with MTBing are number of different types from XC to DH, DH in particular have only in the last few years started using 29ers more even then number of Mullet bikes about ie 29(F) and 27.5 (R)
IrCOd of thought that XC racers again like the Gravel racers who occupy a similar place (very loosely) and is indeed some tyre cross compatibility,
and indeed riders and even to road. Which is different to the more gravity focused racing such as Enduro and DH or even just trail whose riders which tends to favour durability and ability to cave through turns and so on.
In short some of the arguments are simply to excuse the pun just circular
and will be a case of seeing what actually works and happens, IrCOd be surprised if it was adopted wholesale, but IrCOd be expecting it to be more popular than say Fatbikes, but a alternative maybe even mainstream option
in some specific use cases, such as XC MTBing and Gravel racers.
Roger Merriman
On 5/1/2026 6:34 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Clearly no way to know at this point but seems to be few bikes being shown >> and tyres and wheels at various trade shows recently.
Plus few test rides by journalists which is really isnrCOt that interesting >> as limited time and really needs time with normal riders.
Have noted that 32in is 10% larger than a 29er which is 10% larger than
26in bikes, I personally have a older 26in MTB Hardtail and a more modern
29er full suspension MTB, the tyre size is the least significant thing
between the bikes, I am on the taller side so thatrCOs something to note, but
my MTBing is slow tight twisty technical than more open stuff that if one
believes everything thing said online should be playing to a 29ers weakness >> ie rCLwagon wheelsrCY which is what 20 years later the grumbling about 32in is
again using.
This said IrCOm not convinced it will just supplant 700c in the Gravel world >> bar the racer, the folks at unbound racing 200 miles on big open gravel
roads makes sense, with MTBing are number of different types from XC to DH, >> DH in particular have only in the last few years started using 29ers more
even then number of Mullet bikes about ie 29(F) and 27.5 (R)
IrCOd of thought that XC racers again like the Gravel racers who occupy a
similar place (very loosely) and is indeed some tyre cross compatibility,
and indeed riders and even to road. Which is different to the more gravity >> focused racing such as Enduro and DH or even just trail whose riders which >> tends to favour durability and ability to cave through turns and so on.
In short some of the arguments are simply to excuse the pun just circular
and will be a case of seeing what actually works and happens, IrCOd be
surprised if it was adopted wholesale, but IrCOd be expecting it to be more >> popular than say Fatbikes, but a alternative maybe even mainstream option
in some specific use cases, such as XC MTBing and Gravel racers.
Roger Merriman
Yes, is sort solving a problem that doesn't exist. At least fat bikes
have a good fit for use in extremes - deep sand and snow. I don't see
32s filling a particular generic need.
You (we) aren't alone. Velo magazine (formerly Velonews) recently
published an oped on the subject:
https://velo.outsideonline.com/gravel/gravel-gear/32-inch-wheels-leave-everyday-riders-behind/
Tag line:"The cycling industry says a massive new standard is faster and inevitable. You aren't buying it, and that is exactly the right stance."
Velo lets you read a couple of articles for free, but in case you can't
get to this, a couple of memorable quotes stand out:
"If the industry successfully pushes this as the new standard, the
cascade of changes will touch everything, and it inherently makes the
bike worse for most of the riding we actually do."
"for the rest of us just looking to escape traffic, push ourselves a
bit, and pedal some logging roads with friends, we already have exactly
what we need."
Hell, I still ride my 26" hardtail on a regular basis and never bought
into the fatbike fad. I've been on group rides where people have
commented on how much snap my 26 has coming out of a corner on tight singletrack....well duh, I'm accelerating a couple of pounds less of rotating weight with a bike that has a few inches of a short wheelbase
than you, so yes, I'm going to come out of a corner faster. My FS is a
27.5, the difference on tight singletrack is striking between the two.
I remember having a conversation a few years ago with a friend who was a shop manager when 29ers started becoming popular. He made the point that most of the MTB trails around here were built with a 26" in mind, so a
29er which is inherently less maneuverable because of the longer
wheelbase and larger turning diameter isn't going to make anyone any
faster on a tight trail and would get frustrating to a newer rider who
never rode anything but a 29.
Sure, the trail building style has evolved over the years to accommodate
the 29er, but not enough for me to abandon my 26, and at my age, there
no point in changing
Yes, is sort solving a problem that doesn't exist. At least fat bikesI didn't find 26" wheels to be "fast" but I rode 700c bike off-road for years before MTB's came about and the earlier MTB's were unsuspended and handled worse than 700c.
have a good fit for use in extremes - deep sand and snow. I don't see
32s filling a particular generic need.
You (we) aren't alone. Velo magazine (formerly Velonews) recently
published an oped on the subject:
https://velo.outsideonline.com/gravel/gravel-gear/32-inch-wheels-leave-everyday-riders-behind/
Tag line:"The cycling industry says a massive new standard is faster and inevitable. You aren't buying it, and that is exactly the right stance."
Velo lets you read a couple of articles for free, but in case you can't
get to this, a couple of memorable quotes stand out:
"If the industry successfully pushes this as the new standard, the
cascade of changes will touch everything, and it inherently makes the
bike worse for most of the riding we actually do."
"for the rest of us just looking to escape traffic, push ourselves a
bit, and pedal some logging roads with friends, we already have exactly
what we need."
Hell, I still ride my 26" hardtail on a regular basis and never bought
into the fatbike fad. I've been on group rides where people have
commented on how much snap my 26 has coming out of a corner on tight singletrack....well duh, I'm accelerating a couple of pounds less of
rotating weight with a bike that has a few inches of a short wheelbase
than you, so yes, I'm going to come out of a corner faster. My FS is a
27.5, the difference on tight singletrack is striking between the two.
I remember having a conversation a few years ago with a friend who was a
shop manager when 29ers started becoming popular. He made the point that
most of the MTB trails around here were built with a 26" in mind, so a
29er which is inherently less maneuverable because of the longer
wheelbase and larger turning diameter isn't going to make anyone any
faster on a tight trail and would get frustrating to a newer rider who
never rode anything but a 29.
Sure, the trail building style has evolved over the years to accommodate
the 29er, but not enough for me to abandon my 26, and at my age, there
no point in changing
On Sat May 2 08:02:29 2026 zen cycle wrote:
Yes, is sort solving a problem that doesn't exist. At least fat bikes
have a good fit for use in extremes - deep sand and snow. I don't see
32s filling a particular generic need.
You (we) aren't alone. Velo magazine (formerly Velonews) recently
published an oped on the subject:
https://velo.outsideonline.com/gravel/gravel-gear/32-inch-wheels-leave-everyday-riders-behind/
Tag line:"The cycling industry says a massive new standard is faster and
inevitable. You aren't buying it, and that is exactly the right stance."
Velo lets you read a couple of articles for free, but in case you can't
get to this, a couple of memorable quotes stand out:
"If the industry successfully pushes this as the new standard, the
cascade of changes will touch everything, and it inherently makes the
bike worse for most of the riding we actually do."
"for the rest of us just looking to escape traffic, push ourselves a
bit, and pedal some logging roads with friends, we already have exactly
what we need."
Hell, I still ride my 26" hardtail on a regular basis and never bought
into the fatbike fad. I've been on group rides where people have
commented on how much snap my 26 has coming out of a corner on tight
singletrack....well duh, I'm accelerating a couple of pounds less of
rotating weight with a bike that has a few inches of a short wheelbase
than you, so yes, I'm going to come out of a corner faster. My FS is a
27.5, the difference on tight singletrack is striking between the two.
I remember having a conversation a few years ago with a friend who was a
shop manager when 29ers started becoming popular. He made the point that
most of the MTB trails around here were built with a 26" in mind, so a
29er which is inherently less maneuverable because of the longer
wheelbase and larger turning diameter isn't going to make anyone any
faster on a tight trail and would get frustrating to a newer rider who
never rode anything but a 29.
Sure, the trail building style has evolved over the years to accommodate
the 29er, but not enough for me to abandon my 26, and at my age, there
no point in changing
I didn't find 26" wheels to be "fast" but I rode 700c bike off-road for years before MTB's came about and the earlier MTB's were unsuspended and handled worse than 700c.
When I recently got a full suspension 29er I thought it OK but way too heavy and went back to a 700c cyclocross bike.
I see your point and agree that 32" wheels are preposterous. I think that disc brakes are beginning to hit their peak and people will be returning to rim brakes. It takes too long for these fads to wear down but they eventually do.
Yesterday on Highway 88 on a downhill of about 6% a rider coming the other way was CLEALY doing 25 or so mph up that ascent. Those are pro speeds and he was riding rim brakes. Though the bike looked like a new V1R
On Sat May 2 05:00:09 2026 pH wrote:
I am still waiting for this silly 700C fad to fade away. I have 27" wheels >> on my "fleet", just as God intended.
...don't get me started on disc brakes....
Obviously you're not waiting all that hard because I believe you're referring to 27.5" x 1 1/4th touring tires which were driven extinct with 35 mm cheap 700c touring tires. 700c were NEVER a fad because they were always used in Europe and all of the European bikes were set up for them.
I am still waiting for this silly 700C fad to fade away. I have 27" wheels on my "fleet", just as God intended.Obviously you're not waiting all that hard because I believe you're referring to 27.5" x 1 1/4th touring tires which were driven extinct with 35 mm cheap 700c touring tires. 700c were NEVER a fad because they were always used in Europe and all of the European bikes were set up for them.
...don't get me started on disc brakes....
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 04:14:41 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,528 |